Am I thinking critically, or just being critical?
Maybe I shouldn’t have waited to post until after last night’s presidential debate. I had one post almost completely written yesterday, but had to scrap it and start over after watching the debate. In my original post I mentioned a couple of questions I had about Critical Thinking Concepts and Tools by Paul and Elder, and I will get to those here as well, but the presidential debate set my thinking off on a completely different direction relating to this text.
My first thought is that this miniature guide should probably be required reading in high school. Heck, let’s write a children’s version and introduce it in kindergarten. I’m not saying that every page would connect well with young thinkers, but there are some pretty important things that could dramatically alter the way children develop into critical thinkers.
I believe that children are innately programmed toward the process of critical thinking, even if they begin from a place where they lack what Paul and Elder call “Essential Intellectual Traits” (14-15). Anyone who spends time with toddlers knows that “why?” is a crucial piece of their vocabularies. They want to understand how and why things work, happen, and interact. This somewhat annoying trait eventually gets stifled by repeated but varying versions of, “Because I said so.” Then we are frustrated when they struggle to learn to think for themselves later in life. Okay, I know that’s an overly simplified account of what happens but, even with allowances for wide variations, it is a general theme that takes place in homes and schools. Children are steeped in sociocentric thinking even if parents perfectly encourage growth through critical thinking (which, I admit, I did not do). When we become adults, fear and anger seem to quickly drive many of us back to that sociocentrism and egocentrism that are harbingers of a lack of critical thinking.
The statement in Critical Thinking that most disturbed me in relation to what is currently happening in our country is this: “Sociocentric thinking is the hallmark of an uncritical society. It can be diminished only when replaced by cross-cultural, fairminded thinking – critical thinking in the strong sense” (22). A quick look at social media following the presidential debate gives me at least cursory evidence that we may be living in a predominantly uncritical society. This quick checklist by Paul and Elder concerning critical societies must at least give us pause about where our country falls on the scale:
“Critical societies will develop only to the extent that:
- Critical thinking is viewed as essential to living a reasonable and fairminded life.
- Critical thinking is routinely taught; consistently fostered.
- The problematics of thinking are an abiding concern.
- Closed-mindedness is systematically discouraged; open-mindedness systematically encouraged.
- Intellectual integrity, intellectual humility, intellectual empathy, confidence in reason, and intellectual courage are social values.
- Egocentric and sociocentric thinking are recognized as a bane in social life.
- Children are routinely taught that the rights and needs of others are equal to their own.
- A multi-cultural world view is fostered.
- People are encouraged to think for themselves and discouraged from uncritically accepting the thinking or behavior of others.
- People routinely study and diminish irrational thought.
- People internalize universal intellectual standards.” (23)
Of course we see pockets of these things happening in our society, but can we confidently say that we are at least heading toward becoming a critical society as a whole? It seems that every step forward we take is bull-dozed back two or more steps by fear, territorialism, and an egocentric/sociocentric mindset. Or am I unfairly judging our society because it’s an election year?
I do want to quickly address the questions that came up for me in reading this little guide by Paul and Elder. Maybe you all can answer them for me. First, the authors jump directly from talking about thought to reasoning (4) without defining what they mean by reasoning. Dictionary.com defines it as, “the process of forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences from facts or premises,” which is what I assume they meant, but it seemed odd for an instructional book to not define its terms from the onset. Second, who determines what the “universal intellectual standards” (23) will be? Is this a set of standards developed during the enlightenment, making it a set of Western European standards that is deemed universal to all, or have non-western intellectualisms been taken into consideration in these standards? Maybe I’m simply too post-modern, but terms like “universal” make me uncomfortable, especially when applied to things like reason and intellect. What do you think?
About the Author
Kristin Hamilton
14 responses to “Am I thinking critically, or just being critical?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I agree, the concept of “Universal Intellectual Standards” generally means “currently held Western standards.”
That is not necessarily bogus. For example, university students across Asia are voraciously studying Western language, thought, customs, and business practices. They do this because their governments have realized that it is much easier to take over the world through finance and culture than it is with bullets. 50 years ago, this was not the case.
I cannot speak as easily to African and Latin American institutions.
Still, I think that the term “Universal” is a bit weak.
Good points, Stu. I wonder, though, does the fact that Asian countries are adopting western intellectual standards make them more universal or is it an indictment on our imperialism? If other countries recognize that we have been successful with “taking over” then we probably need to rethink those standards.
Kristin, really enjoyable post! You’re so right about children. How can we teach them critical thinking?
Well, we homeschooled our kids and tried to teach them to think for themselves mostly because my husband saw what was happening in the schools. He taught teacher education classes at WOSC (now WOU) and was appalled at the level of competence (or incompetence?).
Dr. Elder is working in this area. She also thinks the problem starts with the teacher colleges.
Next point – “universal standard”. I’d like to think that the Bible contains the standard for everyone. Maybe how we live out the customs etc are different from culture to culture, but there is a standard that I believe everybody has. One side of the coin – No one likes to be cheated or lied to. No one really likes murder or adultery.
The other side of the coin – “Jesus died for all the children, all the children of the world. Red and yellow, black and white, they are precious in His sight; Jesus loves the little children of the world.” The Gospel can be our standard.
I agree that, ideally, we could pull our moral and ethical standards from the gospel and Scripture, Mary. The problem is that our struggle with cross-cultural understanding stretches to interpretation of the Bible. Much like western rationalism seems to have created this list of Universal Intellectual Standards, exegesis and interpretation standards have long been dominated by views that don’t reflect the original context, linguistics, etc. The gospel is most certainly our guiding tenet, if only we can filter our universal “standards” through that tenet.
Yes!
I agree there needs to be a more mini version of this for children. Great point about fear and anger driving toddlers back to egocentric thinking. Made me sad to read that. It’s like we start as brave, insightful critical thinkers by asking “why?” to everything then the fear and anger drives us to an unnatural state where our authentic, healthy selves go underground. Wish we could give our kiddos a more loving, fearless environment so they can live more courageously. If Trump had learned this in Kindergarten, we may have had a radically different leader and debate today.
Good point about an instructional book not defining it’s terms. Maybe if it took the extra time to define the terms it wouldn’t be so miniature?
The more I think about this, Jennifer, the more I think it would be a great thing to create children’s curriculum around critical thinking. I don’t know if it would have kept Trump on track, but it certainly couldn’t have made things worse.
Well Mrs Kristen, that was a mouth full and I am glad you shared it with us.
As a long term youth mentor, I learned a lot from the children and youth I served. Growing up, my parents used this development plan: you speak when you are spoken to, don’t get involved in adult’s conversations, and you do as I say. That development can stunt your memory to grow and result in ineffective decisions. You learned through hard knocks.
In mentoring, I utilized mind provoking thought conversations. I advised parents to teach their children how to communicate. We start with, “Okay the effect of your decision resulted in this…Was that an effective decision? Based on what you know now, what would have been a better decision? Take me through the steps of your thought process. So on and So on.
We, as parents, have to teach them, but some of our own trainng was faulty. Bottom line, we do the best we can and let them know we love them and there for them.
I love the advice you give parents, Lynda. You are correct that we all do the best we can. Wouldn’t it be great if the church and schools worked together to support parents in teaching this critical thinking?
Kristen, you are another brave colleague, who presented a clear and sane view of what our world looks like in 2016. I have to hone up on my brave skills for the next posting! 🙂 You are right on when you say:
“A quick look at social media following the presidential debate gives me at least cursory evidence that we may be living in a predominantly uncritical society.”
As your title suggests we are “critical” but basically “uncritical.” I am convinced the only way for any of us to see the world through the eyes of another is to live in that other culture for an extended period of time. Sherwood Lingenfelter calls this the “Incarnational Model.” God sent his son to live among us so that he could be one of us. Of course, I am a missionary and that is my experience. Also, I know it’s not possible for everyone to experience cross-cultural living. However, I do feel strongly that we should do our best to experience other cultures wherever we live. This is the beginning of the antidote for the “universalism” that you mention. I agree that the term is subject. But one cannot really understand that unless they have experience with other cultures that are outside of their own. Really enjoyed your post!
You make an excellent point, Jim. We are not very good at stepping outside of our culture and comfort zone in order to build that understanding. It’s pretty tough to develop empathy and open our minds if we remain insular.
Jim, this is part of the role you & I have in the States, to give an alternative perspective to our “home culture” from our experience of living among those who think differently. Kip & I regularly share that in our jobs as missionaries it was just as important to expand the way the American church views the gospel & the world as it was to do the same in Kenya. We are multi-directional ambassadors.
Excellent questions raised, Kristin.
I think it is easy to look at our country today (sorry Geoff, don’t mean to leave England out; I just don’t know it very well) and feel discouraged and hopeless.
You mention “small pockets” of society who do think differently; I think we must not dismiss those corners. Movers, changers and influencers come from those small places. Looking at the history, not just of America, but of societies as a whole, have we really ever truly seen a “critical society”? Perhaps amongst smaller groups of people. But generally, critical thinkers seem to be a minority historically.
Good point, Katy. I think I have just become discouraged by the deafening roar of people who, at this time, don’t seem to be thinking critically. People I trust and love are making decisions based on some really weird things, doing logical gymnastics to try to defend their point of view. It’s frustrating and confusing and disheartening when sane, reasonable conversations can’t be held where once it was possible. I think we are part of those small pockets of critical thinkers and I want to continue to be so.